George,

PMFJI... & IANAL (thank God <g>)

Doesn't matter. It is the law currently and the case has to proceed under current law.

However, as to whether or not the Sherman Anti-Trust Act should be abolished/modified/extended is IMO most certainly up for review. That seems more to be a political issue though.

Seems to me that a real big part of today's economy is moving at a pace so fast that the traditional response as measured in units of time is almost rendered entirely meaningless.

Don't quite know what the best tradeoff would be here. Faster and potentially more error prone justice or new laws that as always and by virtue of being after the factmust follow an action rather than preceed it. Laws, by virtue of being reactive rather then proactive must be more finely crafted to make sure that they have the intended impact.

Today's crook also moves at the speed of the Internet it seems...

Best,

DD


>JVP,
>
>Thanks for a thought provoking response. I've read through some of the document in the link, but not all. I seems, from what I've read, that there's a good deal of reliance on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Do you see any validity in the argument that since the business market place has changed considerably in the last 100+ years since its enactment, that it may no longer be entirely applicable in today's business environment?